I am currently working on the cover design for my forthcoming book, which will also be called Liberty’s Lifeline, and on the cover will be a drawing of the Statue of Liberty.  When the artist drew it, they left the tablet in Lady Liberty’s left arm blank.  My advisors suggested that I come up with something that describes the nature of the book that can fit on the tablet.  It’s not much of a canvas, especially when it is drawn to fit on the cover of a 6”x9” book.

The essence of the book is about how we got into the mess we are currently in and what we can do to get out of it.  Bloated government, taxes up to the eyeballs, debt as far as the eye can see are what we are wrestling with.  So I picked up my copy of the Constitution to see how much stuff the Founders wanted the government to give to everyone.  The short answer is nothing.

 The Constitution is about some pretty basic things.  Protecting us from foreign powers and managing our relations concerning commerce with them.  Putting the basic pieces in place to operate as a government: money, post offices, courts, patents and trademarks, bankruptcies, Naturalization, standards of weights and measures, and that’s about it.  It was to be a framework within which we would be left alone to live our lives in liberty and to pursue our own happiness.

But where are we today?  Where did we jump the tracks?  How much of it is because government started giving us things?  As government gave us more and more things, they needed the money to pay for it, so they had to take more from us.  Government has no money except that which it gets from its citizens.  So to give something it has to take something.  Give not, take not.  The Founders seemed to know this instinctively and created a government that was to provide structure not sustenance.

Think about what the government gives out:  retirement; medical care; farm subsidies to raise food prices and food stamps because food is too expensive; housing subsidies; tax breaks for this, that, and the other thing; funds for education; ethanol subsidies, solar subsidies, wind subsidies; and on and on. 

Prior to 1913, there was no income tax.  At first the tax was only on the very rich, but now taxes in some form or another have reached the point where almost no one escapes it.  But today, it is not enough.  There are talks of a national sales tax in the air, which would open the floodgates of revenue into Washington, which will enable Congress to give away more goodies, and then take more of the fruits of our labor.

So how do we clean up this mess?  Start with giving less.  It is redistribution of wealth plain and simple.  Give less, take less.  Cut a program, cut an equal amount of taxes.  Cut another program, cut more taxes.  If some people really want the government to provide these things then let them do it at the state or local level, but be forewarned, if you go bankrupt, don’t look to the rest of us for a bailout.  If we followed this simple four word rule, give not, take not, then there may be a day when the income tax goes away or becomes so modest that there will be no more arguments about how to raise it, now much, and on whom.  The income tax rates would be low and the epic battles we are seeing played out in Congress would be a memory.

The ideal of federalism was not to aggregate everything in a massive central government.  It was to have each individual rely first on themselves, then on their family, then on their faith community.  Local governments would provide services closer to the people like schools, water, roads, police, fire, sanitation.  Those governments would have their own ability to tax their citizens, but would also have to face them, literally.  Town hall meetings take on another meaning when you look your constituents in the eye.

Give not. Take not.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Two disparate news items this weekend got me thinking.  The main stream media is all abuzz with Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, even to the point of throwing the term royalty around.  It is estimated that the wedding will cost $3-$5 million, although Sally Quinn of the Washington post puts the bill at closer to $1 million.  The comparison was then made to the cost of Jenna Bush’s wedding, a mere $100,000.  This became fodder for The Joy Behar Show.  Comedian Judy Gold leaped at the opportunity to take a shot at Bush, “Yeah, well, if he could have found a way for us to pay for Jenna`s wedding, he would have done that, okay, he likes to spend other people`s money.”  An interesting perspective on other people’s money that I will return to later.

The other news items was an article in The New York Times, by Bob Herbert titled “A Sin and a Shame,” lamenting that corporations are hording cash and not hiring people and it is all so unfair, in fact, sinful.  This is while this government is spending huge amounts of money that someone will have to pay back, massive new programs like ObamaCare that we are still uncovering what that will cost, and enormous tax increases about to kick in on January 1 when the Bush tax cuts expire.  Perhaps they are hording cash for a reason?  Perhaps they are not hiring because they don’t know what any new employees will cost under these new programs, or for that matter what their existing employees are going to cost?  Perhaps it is because the latest economic reports show GDP shrinking and if that continues why would you start hiring if your business is going to slow down with the rest of the economy?

We have two very divergent views of the economy today.  One view is held by those who actually work in the private economy and the other view is held by those in the ivory towers of government, which brings me back to the weddings.  I really don’t care what the Clintons or the Bushes spend on their daughter’s weddings.  It’s their money.  But perhaps it is instructive to look at where that money came from.

George Herbert Walker Bush, Jenna’s grandfather, was born into a successful family.  His father was a banker and a Senator.  But after getting out of the Army after WWII he went to Yale and upon graduation, moved away from that family and settled in Texas to start an oil company.  He went into private business and put his own money at risk.  What that means, to those who never took that chance, is you may be successful and make a lot of money, you may be successful and make a little money, you may fail and lose your money.  Chances are greater that you will lose than win, but that is the American Dream.  If you lose, you have to start over by trying to earn and save up what you lost to try again, if you have the guts and drive.  Bush succeeded in forming Bush-Overby and later with Zapata Petroleum.  He became President of Zapata for ten years and then Chairman for another two, before going into politics.  By then he was a millionaire in his own right.

George Walker Bush, Jenna’s dad, attended public school in Midland, Texas, where his parents had settled.  He went to private school after the family moved to Houston.  He later attended Yale University and became the only president to get an MBA which he did, from Harvard.  Like his father, he went into the oil business starting several independent oil exploration companies.  He later bought a stake in the Texas Rangers baseball team for $800,000 and was instrumental in building the team’s attendance.  He later sold his stake for $15 million.  Then he went into politics.

The two Bushes know risk, know about taking chances and became millionaires on their own before going into politics.  They also learned lessons about spending money and doing so prudently. 

Bill Clinton went into politics almost immediately after getting his law degree.  He was Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas.  As governor he had a governor’s mansion.  He ran for president and upon winning traded in his governor’s mansion for the Executive Mansion, aka the White House.  He had been on the government payroll and living in government provided housing almost his entire working life.  The sweat of the people in who paid their taxes paid him.  After leaving office, Mr. Clinton was able to write books about his experience and make speeches commanding six figures a pop.  His wife did pretty much the same.  They lived off the people and ended up very rich.  They didn’t create a product or service, they didn’t create jobs, and they didn’t meet a payroll. 

I can hear the screams from the left right now, “What do you mean he didn’t create a job or meet a payroll?”  Try this test.  If Bill Clinton’s opponent was elected rather than Bill Clinton, would there still be a government payroll and government jobs?  If yes, Bill Clinton didn’t create them.  If either of the Bushes didn’t create their companies would there be jobs at those companies or payrolls?  No.

What about some other famous politicians who tell us what to do?  Let’s look at Al Gore.  Here is another individual that spent the bulk of his career in government.  He was a member of Congress, a United States Senator, Vice President and presidential candidate.  Today he is very rich.  It is said he may become the first “green billionaire”.  If he went into his current endeavors before a life in government, would the story be the same?  Or is it because of his name, reputation, and connections that he made at the public trough, that he is wallowing in riches, and telling the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprint while his mansions consume ten times the energy of his neighbors?

Charlie Rangel spent most of his life in government.  He rose through the ranks and now has a waterfront condominium in the Dominican Republic, writes the tax laws but does not observe them, and is a wealthy man.  Conservatives don’t believe in rent control or rent stabilized apartments, but Charlie does.  After all, how can poor and middle income people afford to live in places like Manhattan if greedy landlords have their way.  So Charlie Rangel who makes $174,000 per year, plus his chairmanship pay, has not one, not two, not three, but four rent controlled apartments.  Is he poor or middle class?  No, he is the political class.  He took three adjoining rent controlled apartments and had them joined together, while the fourth apartment served, illegally, as his campaign headquarters.  What about the poor and blue collar workers who could live in Manhattan if three of your four rent controlled apartments weren’t being horded by you?  Let them eat cake.

John Kerry is in the news for trying to avoid $500,000 in taxes on his new yacht.  Here is another individual who spent his entire working life in government.  He can tell the rest of us to pay more taxes while he garners favors spending our money. He is the richest man in the Senate but with prenuptial agreements with his wife he only lists personal assets of between $400,000 and $1.8 million and joint assets with his wife of $300,000 – $600,000.  So how does he buy a $7 million yacht?  I am not suggesting anything nefarious, it’s obvious his wife paid for it, but do you think he is in touch with someone trying to make a payroll in the private sector?  You pay taxes; John Kerry has advisors to figure out how to avoid them.

So those evil corporations started by those evil men like George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush, know the value of a dollar.  They know we are not out of the woods yet and so to protect the jobs that their companies still have they are not hiring but are building their rainy day funds.  Perhaps Bob Herbert should ask why his employer is shedding jobs left and right.  Perhaps this is his safe way of doing so, but on the other hand the New York Times is hardly hording cash.  Its circulation is crashing because people like Bob Herbert are so out of touch with the rest of America; no one wants to read his rants any longer.

So perhaps Bill Clinton spends millions on Chelsea’s wedding because he didn’t learn the value of a dollar.  He lived of the government for many years and then just held out a basket and it was miraculously filled with more money than he can count.  George Bush spent $100,000 on a wedding because he knows how hard it is to earn a dollar.  What we need is less of the political class telling us what to do, and then handing us the bill and more entrepreneurial Americans who risk their own money, watch it like hawks, create jobs and generate wealth that they then reinvest in America.

Best wishes to Chelsea and Marc.

The talking points have been established that it was eight years, eight, of failed Bush and/or Republican policies that got us into this mess and President Obama and the Democrats are working hard to get us out of it.  Let’s take a closer look.

What blew up in 2008?  It was the housing market.  The underlying cause of the problem has Democrat/liberal/progressive fingerprints all over it going back to Franklin Roosevelt who created Fannie Mae.  Add into that mix Lyndon Johnson privatizing Fannie Mae to hide it from the budget and creating HUD; Jimmy Carter creating the Community Reinvestment Act; Bill Clinton pushing for more home ownership among those who could least afford it, Andrew Cuomo as HUD Secretary pushing Fannie and Freddie to take on riskier mortgages; Barney Frank and Chris Dodd fighting against regulation before they were fighting for it (and where have we heard that formulation before?); and when housing prices run out of gas and the house of cards that the Democrats built collapses, it’s all Bush’s fault.

Let’s look at the timeline.  When he took office, President Bush was handed a recession from Bill Clinton resulting from the dot.com bubble.  In less than a year we had 9/11.  In spite of that, Bush pushed through tax cuts and got the economy to grow through most of his presidency.  The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 and in December 2007 the economy went into recession.  One year later Barack Obama is elected President of the United States.  Now, more than a year and a half after Obama is in office the economy looks like it is slipping into a double dip recession, and this is the Republican’s fault?  Who has been spending like a drunken sailor?  Who wasted almost $1 trillion on a stimulus plan that was so ineffective the Obama administration had to invent a new statistic, “jobs saved”, to hide its dismal performance.  They add on ObamaCare, which no one in Congress read before voting on it and no one knows what is in it and so no small business is going to hire anyone until they know what it costs.  How is that the Republican’s fault or Bush’s?

We are just a few months away from the tax cuts put in place by President Bush expiring.  President Obama wants them to expire.  This will place an additional massive burden on small businesses and just about everyone else and he wonders why aren’t companies hiring?  The man came into office with no executive experience and the year and a half he has been in office he hasn’t seemed to pick up any.  Could it be because he is surrounded by advisors who have little to no executive experience themselves?

To my fellow Americans I say, hang in there it is less than 100 days to vote the bums out.  Perhaps not all of them, but at least we can bring in some adult supervision.  It’s time to stop steamrolling the American people with the socialist programs and to let “We the People” take back our government.

Over the past eleven months, have you ever gotten a feeling that you are watching a magician, rather than a president run our country?  As any practitioner of the art of the illusionist will tell you, one of the key things is to keep the audience distracted.  Have them watch the left hand, while the right is slipping the coin into the pocket.  The Obama Administration is about to unleash their greatest trick yet, trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civil court in New York for the 9/11 attack on America.  Why?

The Greatest Show On Earth

The trial will become an absolute three ring circus, with all the world watching closely.  The liberal pundits say, “this is our chance to show the world our justice system.  We can demonstrate how civilized we are, and show the Muslim world how fair we are.”  Really?

Remember to the footage in the Muslim world immediately following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  They were dancing in the street, laughing and singing, shouting praise to Allah.  What do you think the reaction will be if Khalid Sheik Mohammed, jumps up in court and screams out, “Kill the infidels! This is a fraud meant to disguise these devil’s tricks!”  Do we let him ramble with a global audience?  Do we have the bailiffs wrestle him to the ground?  Do we put him in restraints for the rest of the trial?  Who exactly is going to show the world what?

We Have No Secrets

In a civilian trial there is a process called discovery, where the defense is told everything the prosecution plans on bringing to court, including witnesses, so that the defense has a chance to prepare their rebuttal case.  How much of the CIA’s methods and contacts are we prepared to reveal to the world and to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s allies?  Or, how much are we not going to use in order to protect that information and at the same time increase the chances that he will be acquitted?

Can Anybody Say O.J.?

Do you remember the O.J. Simpson trial?  A slam-dunk if ever there was one.  There was blood evidence, DNA evidence, means, motive, opportunity, it couldn’t get any easier.  But what happened?  Judge Lance Ito, lost control of his court room in the klieg lights of national television.  One of O.J.’s attorneys or advisors told O.J. to stop taking his arthritis medication  so his hands would swell and then the famous glove trick, abra cadabra, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  What happened after that trial?  Dancing in the streets of the black community.

The Jury Pool

Are Muslims going to be excluded from the jury pool?  If so, on what grounds and would a judge allow it?  In the O.J. case we had what was called jury nullification, where a jury handed up a verdict not based on the evidence presented, but based on a social determination.  O.J. was a symbol for all black men put on trial and all past injustices.  He was a sports hero to millions and he wasn’t going down, no matter what.  What if a someone with strong beliefs sees disrupting the outcome of the trial as the new jihad?  Don’t use suicide bombers in New York, that’s so Middle East, let’s kill them softly by getting Khalid Sheik Mohammed acquitted or a give them a hung jury.  What better way to humiliate the Great Satan.  It will be like David and Goliath all over again.

The Real Trial

Or is it really the Bush Administration that Obama wants to put on trial?  The Obama administration’s popularity is sinking link a stone.  The stimulus package was a bust.  Cap and Trade is a disaster.  Health care a debacle.  Tea Party’s are breaking out all over.  The Democrats got trounced in Virginia and New Jersey, and even New York’s 23rd is still alive as recounts have dramatically closed the gap. A show trial of the Bush Administration is just what the Obama Administration needs to keep the focus off what they are really doing.

This is a tragedy and a travesty and there should be no end to the shame heaped upon this administration if they follow through on this.

I Didn't Know About any Stinkin' Waterboarding!

I heard a Democratic pundit on TV today say that calling Nancy Pelosi a liar was way out of line. It was far too strong a term to use regarding this delicate matter.  As Tony Snow used to say from the podium in the White House briefing room, “ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?”

A Flexible Lexicon

How many times did we hear the phrase, “Bush lied, {fill in the blank}”?  Bush was accused repeatedly, lustily, full throated, spittle flying, of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  What is the definition of a lie?

“To make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive.” — YourDictionary.com

So, the CIA, the intelligence agencies of several allies, all provided information that indicated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds, and the Iranians.  So Bush reached the conclusion, which was backed by Congress, by their vote authorizing the use of force, and the UN that weapons of mass destruction existed.  Yes, they were all wrong, but how was Bush to know this information was false, when his advisors and the advisors of our allies said it was true?  So, how is this a lie?  Simple, a Republican is held to a higher standard than a Democrat.  For a Republican, a lie is whatever the Democrats say it is.  For a Democrat, a lie is whatever the Democrats say it is.

Dear Nancy

Nancy Pelosi sat in a room where she and Porter Goss were briefed on waterboarding, but she says she wasn’t briefed.  Documents prove she was there.  Porter Goss remembers her being there.  Did she have her fingers in her ears, stamping her feet, and yelling, “Nah, Nah, Nah, I can’t hear you!”?  Now let’s apply the above definition to dear Nancy.  She made several statements, all caught on video tape, vehemently denying that she knew waterboarding was actually used.  This was for one purpose only, to deceive the American people and her supporters, that she was not involved, nor did she approve in what has now been redefined as torture.

International Embarrassment

I don’t know about you, but I find it embarrassing to have such gutless people in positions of authority in government.  Say want you mean, mean what you say.  The bottom line is that these statists, have no principles.  They have no moral compass to guide their behavior.  Their only guide is how to tighten their grasp on power and how to take away as much liberty as possible from the American people.  In doing so, those same people will depend more and more on government and keep these moral midgets in power.

Early this morning I was listening to a news broadcast where they said that this fiscal year’s federal budget deficit (October 2008-September 2009) will top $1 trillion which is more that triple the largest budget deficit in history.  That sounded pretty bad even considering the financial bailout that the government was undertaking to keep the money flowing.

Reading later in the day in the Wall Street Journal, Obama is quoted as saying, “We’re already looking at a $1 trillion budget deficit or close to a $1 trillion budget deficit, and potentially we’ve got $1 trillion deficits for years to come,” {emphasis added}.  Years to Come?  This is hope? This is change? I’ll give you a moment to try to wrap your mind around that statement before I continue.

If we see trillion dollar deficits for years to come, That’s All Folks!, our economy is gone, G-O-N-E.

Now I understand he may have just been saying that for the shock effect because he follows that statement with the another about the necessity of budget reform.  Budget reform? People, budget reform is not going to close a trillion dollar shortfall, and the very fact that the president-elect even utters the words is like shouting FIRE in a crowded theater.  Does he think that is leadership?  Here is where Obama’s lack of executive experience is on full display, and the man is yet to take office.

In an excellent piece on Cafe Hayek, Russ Roberts explains that if you cut taxes but you do not cut spending by an equal or larger amount, you are not really cutting taxes.  All you are doing is moving them around.  To put it another way, if you cut taxes today and spend the same or more, you are just deferring the taxes to later.  The debt will eventually have to be paid and it is paid through taxes.  So with trillion dollar budget deficits on the horizon, there will be a tax bill coming due that will crush the economy for us or for our children.

Someone needs to take Obama aside and tell him never to make such a public statement again, lest someone throw a net over him and carry him off to an asylum.  Second, he needs to get with his advisors and start hacking away at the size of the government and I recommend starting with the Department of Education.  Although it took 28 years for that department to spend a trillion dollars, it’s a start.  But this is not going to be fixed by tinkering or eliminating earmarks.  Our government has gotten too big and is meddling in too many things, causing many of the problems it is now trying to fix.  Government needs to be cut down to size.